[TomGuy]

From the MSNBC article:

a coalition spokesperson said. “A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time.”

If a decision was made not to strike, then either coalition forces were close enough to strike or the drone was armed.

If the drone was not armed, why wouldn't the coalition spoksperson say that?

[TexKat]

If the drone was not armed, why wouldn't the coalition spoksperson say that?

I don't know TomGuy. I will wait and in about 6 months to a year I guess the truth will reveal itself.

All I know is that I awoke to this supposed news story this morning and I was fuming mad while driving all the way to work.

I should have known that there would be more to this than meets the eye.